IS EVERYBODY 100% POSITIVE THERE IS NO GOD?

I wanted to put this question out there to see how strongly everyone feels on this subject. Being that most of us trust in scientific fact and reasoning, I was wondering if everyone is absolutely, undeniably, 100% sure that a god doesn't exist. I personally take into account that there is no proof of any cosmic creator so therefore I am about 99.9999% sure that there is no god. However we all agree that science is an ever evolving field and I don't think that there will ever be any proof to support the existence of a supreme being, but I can't be 100% sure until there is concrete proof against one. I would like to know what all of your thoughts on this.

Replies to This Discussion

Such an interesting discussion! Still, Vince, don't you think that Xians/Muslims/whatever think that they have done all the work in their 'holey' books? Our assertions that they have to define god are all very well, but they figure it's all there for the reading. We'll rarely if ever convince anybody with logic - they have to come to enlightenment the same way the rest of us did, one step at a time. Meantime, they have all the 'proof' and definitions they need. It doesn't even seem to matter that they keep shooting themselves in the foot eg. Jim and Tammy Faye etc.

Actually, I don't think most religious people, whether Christians, Jews, Muslims, or what have you, actually think their holy texts offer a cohesive definition of the Gods in which they profess to believe. They are happy to have a vague word to which they can tape all their mystical connotations and let it go at that. If there were a coherent definition, it would not require their special brand of faith, and they love faith.

But I don't have debates or even conversations based on their terms. I don't allow the premise in the first place. Intelligent conversation must demand logic.

There's no compelling evidence there are dieties. If there is bring it forward and let's take look. Thousands of diests have never been able to answer this challenge credibly and it isn't an Athiests responsiblity to prove the negative.

While it is certainly proper manners for the person asserting the existence of something to provide proof, this is simply a matter of protocol.

As an atheist who would like to have less theistic interference in government and society, I think it is very much my responsibility to myself and my children at the very least to prove that God does not exist.

Luckily, this is not very difficult.

What is very difficult is finding someone who can posit a coherent definition for "God" so that I can prove it doesn't exist. Usually, most efforts are either incoherent/oxymoronic, or attempt to synonymize God with love, flowers, bees, birds, the universe, blue skies, and butterflies. Refusing to accept the premise that butterflies are a deity is easy enough.

So we see that there is not merely a lack of compelling evidence that there is a God, but there is absolute proof that there is not.

I agree that they are agnostic rather than atheist, but I think "coward" is an unnecessary and inappropriate smear in most cases. I don't think most Ivory Soap Atheists (99 44/100 pure) hold back out of fear, but out of a contrived notion of fairness.

Many were reared as theists and recall how certain they were that there was a God and yet appear to have been mistaken. That provides an understandable grain of salt and they fail to discern the difference between being programmed as a child to accept something on faith and falsely but sincerely calling it knowledge, and using logic, that is a system of thought based on non-contradictory data, and arriving at conclusions based on such.

They are further held back by such homespun bits like "you can't prove a negative," which many take as a rule of logic even though it is clearly a fallacy.

Then they tie themselves with the notion that certainty is a magic spell that will prevent them from having later epiphanies should contrary evidence present itself.

I suppose that they imagine some scenario where those of us who are certain are wandering through the rapture with our eyes closed unable to see the risen Christ as he gathers his elect or some such. They pretend that being certain is a vice and never a virtue. They are told that they must be open-minded in order to be scientific, that they must allow the possibility that any random assertion by any nut on the street might be true. Of course, science does not make such a demand anymore than medicine demands that doctors follow the Hippocratic Oath in order to heal. It is a contrivance sold to those who do not think for themselves.

It does not logically follow that being approachable by those claiming new evidence for old assertions demands that one never have been certain.

Willa, you are right that atheism isn't strong agnosticism. Neither is agnosticism weak atheism. Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of deity. Disbelief is the mental rejection of something as untrue. It is not the mental rejection of something that is possible.

I don't think agnosticism is a dirty word or even an insulting one though I confess that I enjoy luring agnostics off the fence as it were. And there is nothing cowardly about expressing your honest opinion. In fact, that is the epitome of courage.

Semantics are important, however, as intelligent discussion deteriorates pretty quickly when people cannot even agree on the meaning of the words they are using to discuss an issue.

15 years ago? I recall the old #atheism boards on IRC chat clients. Lots of interesting conversations back then.